US ISPs Using Push Polling To Stop Cheap Internet 417
An anonymous reader writes "What happens when a new ISP is started somewhere in the United States that completely blows out of the water all the other ISPs in the area, in terms of price and performance? Apparently, that question is being answered in North Carolina, where Greenlight Inc., a company started by a city government, is trying to offer faster, more reliable, and cheaper Internet service to the local residents. Time Warner and Embarq can't compete. So they are not only lobbying the state government to destroy the upstart competition, but are now using push polling methods to gain support, across the two cities that could benefit from the new ISP, for the 'Level the playing field' legislation they got introduced in the legislature." A local news outlet provides coverage more friendly to the incumbents' point of view.
Well yeah... (Score:5, Interesting)
Surprise someone finally realized that the last mile is a natural monopoly and should be a utility.
This totally ruins their business model of selling something that costs almost nothing for a lot more than nothing.
Of course they're going to pull out every stop to well stop this from happening.
Re:Well yeah... (Score:5, Interesting)
They can pull out every stop if they want. But with an economy that sucks, even if most of it is in peoples heads, people are looking for every way they can to save a penny.
Now would be the perfect time for some upstart companies to gain some market share by simply pricing themselves $10 or so cheaper than the competition. Throw in the added bandwidth and its a no-brainer. The biggest hurdle is getting your name out there. They need to make sure they budget for the right kind of local marketing for it to work.
Re:Well yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
AS someone who worked for a small ISP (Score:5, Interesting)
What really stinks, especially in rural areas, is that you have to buy your back-end bandwidth from a person you are competing against.
They get their money either way, charging a fortune for a 1.5 Mb T1 line, again, especially in rural areas.
So they make a killing off of a bunch of bonded T1 lines or a partial DS3, and then you have to compete with them against their own offerings (i.e. 19.99 and 29.99 a month DSL).
So you get the headache of customer support and make a little money, and the phone company does good either way. Your niche market in a rural area is areas not serviced by the phone company, which means when the phone company does go into a new area, you lose your customers in that area because you can hardly compete with the people who own the infrastructure.
Again, I know there are more options in larger cities, but there is a reason a business likes to be a monopoly.
Transporter_ii
Re:AS someone who worked for a small ISP (Score:5, Interesting)
A similar thing happened to some "community internet" initiatives in the UK. In villages where there was no broadband, people costed out getting a T1 line to their village and splitting the cost. It usually came to slightly more than broadband from the big providers - but with the choice of that or dial-up people would sign up for the service.
The community projects would get the money together and order the T1 line. What British Telecom did, of course, was install a much bigger trunk than needed for a single T1 line, as the extra cost is pretty low and then offer broadband in the area. Many people would then say "I wouldn't have signed for the community project if I knew that broadband was coming here anyway" and try to get out of their commitment. Usually after a year which people had signed up to the project would fold because everyone would switch to BT rather than renew. So BT gets paid to install a line and then uses it to give cheaper competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's standard practice to install more capacity than necessary, the extra cost is marginal if you already have the streets dug up and it makes it much cheaper to service upgrades in the future.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless, while people feel cheated I think they're looking at the situation wrong. Inherent business conservatism keeps BT from putting fat pipes to all the little villages. However, if said village shows the initiative to back their grumblings for better service by seeking it out themselves, BT knows there's a market. Digging up the dirt, and not the fiber itself is the cost in growth, so naturally they're
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Back in about 2002, a small print shop in the village I lived in put a sign in their window. It said something like "We have asked for broadband, but BT say they don't have evidence of demand for this village. If you want broadband, phone BT on xxx and request it. When they get 400 requests, they will install broadband to the whole village".
We got broadband a few months later.
IIRC, BT had a counter on their website for every exchange in the UK recording demand, the higher the demand the sooner ADSL was inst
Re:AS someone who worked for a small ISP (Score:5, Interesting)
As a counter-example, my dad's office building is in the middle of Midvale, Utah, which is effectively part of Salt Lake City. He wanted to get Comcast internet service for his office building. They wouldn't provide it, because they would have had to run a cable across the street (literally). He offered to pay for it himself, and they still said no.
Instead, they wanted him to get some percentage of the tenants of that business park to sign up for Comcast - they wanted him to do their marketing for them! As a busy accountant, my dad hardly has time to do that kind of thing.
He ended up getting Qwest DSL instead.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Spread between 20 people this
Re: (Score:2)
(Note: This only applies to England & Wales, as all Scottish & Northern Irish telephone exchanges are broadband enabled)
This was happening a few years back, there aren't many places in England [samknows.com] without broadband enabled exchanges now.
Re:AS someone who worked for a small ISP (Score:5, Informative)
Had the villagers gotten together and negotiated with the telco directly, then there probably wouldn't have been an issue, saved some money, and one hell of a headache.
I think you missed the last article about this situation - the city did ask the telcos to provide service (after providing marketing demographics), and the telcos said no. They then took the next logical step - they set up their own ISP to serve their needs. I don't see what else they could have done.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This happened at a place that I used to consult for.
We would pay verizon about $30/mo per customer to get access to the physical infrastructure, and on top of that, we had to pay for the throughput bandwidth and support costs. We sold DSL at about $50/mo.
Then Verizon came in and started direct selling DSL to the customer for $30/mo.
I mean, we were paying them for local loop access, AND we were buying our upstream bandwidth (a fractional DS3, i think?) from them.
They get their goddamn money either way.
Now,
Re:AS someone who worked for a small ISP (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, our company is in exactly this situation. But there are other factors that you do not take into account. Large companies also like to screw their own customers. We found that plain hatred of the competition has driven a lot of customers our way, merely because we like to treat them like human beings.
Very large corporations also compete within their own department. Our bandwidth salesman makes zero money off of his company's DSL customers. Any customer we get is more bandwidth sold for him and he gives us a very decent deal.
Re: (Score:2)
What really stinks, especially in rural areas, is that you have to buy your back-end bandwidth from a person you are competing against.
That's not just a problem in rural areas. In everyplace I've ever been in the US (including some major cities), all Internet connections go over either the cable infrastructure or Verizon's infrastructure. So any other ISP is basically paying Verizon to be able to provide DSL or a T1 or whatever else, and meanwhile they're competing against Verizon's offerings. In some cases, the ISPs are buying access from another company that's buying access from Verizon.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
At least in theory this was dealt with in the UK by making BT (the company which maintained the infrastructure, and worked as an ISP) split out the infrastructure side into a separate company (BT Openreach) which is required to sell bandwidth at the same price to BT and their competitors.
As with anything like that it hasn't been a complete success, but on the whole it seems to be working, with some excellent competition between providers.
REALLY misleading title (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:REALLY misleading title (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how this bill is unfair at all.
I guess you missed this bit:
Establish a separate enterprise fund for communications service and shall
use this fund to separately account for revenues, expenses, property, and
source of investment dollars associated with the provision of
communications service.
Is a telco or cable company required to keep separate accounts for their internet service? Why are they not required to keep their internet and other services separate? Why is a cable company allowed to leverage it's existing monopoly by subsidizing it's internet service (like it might do to drive it's internet competition out of business), but a city isn't?
If it was *REALLY* about "leveling" the playing field, I would assume that the bill would say that *ALL* internet providers would be subject to these rules, not just cities.
Re:REALLY misleading title (Score:5, Interesting)
And there's the rub.
When I was growing up, we used to have two choices for cable TV - Warner Cable (later became Time Warner) and Viacom Cable.
Warner was the "newcomer". They started running "specials", subsidized by their monopolies on OTHER cities. For a while, you got a basic cable package for $15/month and the pay channels like HBO for another $5 or so.
Then, Viacom folded. They couldn't compete any more, they were losing customers in droves to the "specials" because at that price, Warner was actually selling the service below cost (but claiming it was a "special" and a "sale", so getting around state laws against below-cost permanent pricing).
What did people find out once Viacom was dead? TW did what they do to everyone once they have a monopoly - they started running TV ads with the "happy king" declaring "I declare Warner Cable for my entire kingdom!" with a shit-eating grin on his face.
Meanwhile those "special" $15/month rates were expired out, and within 3 months the base price was $80/month.
Look at the prices you're offered for ISP service. If you are in a "competition" area, one of the lucky SOB's on a border (and the borders move as they put each other out of business), you can probably swing some ridiculously cheap pricing. Otherwise, what do you get? Comcrap pretty much has a monopoly on our area. DSL service is technically "available" if you want roughly the same data rate as a pair of 33.6 phone modems (no seriously: they haven't upgraded their equipment in 10 years or more).
Comcrap, 10 miles down the road, offers their "high tier" speed at $40/month. For us, "low tier" is $50/month. That's because 10 miles down the road, Verizon owns the lines and is offering FiOS to compete with Comcrap. Meanwhile, Comcrap's own internal memos show that they could double the speed to EVERY USER IN THEIR NETWORK, both up and down, for a mere $6/customer one-time cost, and they refuse to do it.
That's the kind of shit you deal with. They all want a monopoly so they can gouge the crap out of you.
Re:REALLY misleading title (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm with you on this -- the monopoly is completely anti-consumer. The problem is that with significantly lower operating costs, the city will be able to drive the telcos out, and then THEY will be the monopoly. I hate private monopolies but I hate the state as monopoly equally. Simple solution here. Tell the city they cannot collect fees/taxes on the ISPs we're all good. I definitely want the city to come in and bust up the Telco monopoly -- I just don't want one monopoly to be replaced by another.
"
I agree the way the telcos are going about this is wrong though. I'd rather see legislation like: Where municipalities set up their own ISP, they cannot assess city taxes or fees on competing ISPs."
It's all about operating costs -- make those as equal as you can, and THEN let everyone compete.
Re:REALLY misleading title (Score:5, Interesting)
From the techjournalsouth article-
"If the cable/phone companies really want a level playing field, they'd open their books just like we do in the spirit of open meetings and open records law. They don't want a level playing field. They want to be the only team on the field."
It seems the community internet operating books will be transparent, so people can see what costs are, and where the money is going. It's a public service, not a for-profit business like Time Warner is.
While it's true a monopoly is generally anti-consumer, a publicly open/owned monopoly is far less likely to be in a position to price gouge for crap service, where the larger, established private monopolies already are.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Read the senate bill: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/PDF/S1004v1.pdf [state.nc.us] [state.nc.us] I hate the telcos as much as anyone, but this bill says that when the city enters into the communications business, it should have to pay all the same taxes and fees as private business would, and be burdened with the same oversight. They also say that other fees the citizens pay (trash, water etc) cannot be used to fund the communications business. I don't see how this bill is unfair at all. The telco
"Levelling the playing field" my ass (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Surprise someone finally realized that the last mile is a natural monopoly and should be a utility."
Um, when I moved in to the house I own now, it had two cable services and a telecom service entering the house. No monopoly that I can see, though I am lucky enough to live 1500 feet from a switch and my DSL service was very hot.
Then the 2nd cable company was bought out by Cox. A monopoly emerged. SO I'm down to two 'last miles' entering my house. I don't see Cox and Qwest getting together anytime soon.
In
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My house has two different telecommunications cables - from BT and Virgin. Pretty much everyone in the country has access to BT, except in Hull where Kingston provides it instead, but only about half the population has access to Cable, mostly Virgin, but there are about two places where Wight Cable provides it. If you have a large business in the centre of London or some of the other large cities, you might find another company that will supply you with a pipe.
Virgin, or NTL/Telewest before them didn't ca
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the term 'natural monopoly' was used by the OP. I accepted it at face value.
And you seem to be saying that it is in fact the likely outcome of the market.
But one point... Ok, two. Or three.
How many different providers would be needed to avoid a natural (or any other type) monopoly? 2? 3? 4? I can see where two cable providers, a telcom provider, and a wireless provider could offer a market that would not be considered a monopolized market. That would have been Mesa, Arizona in 2006 until Cox
Re:Well yeah... (Score:5, Informative)
The immediate goal was 98% coverage by the end of 2007 and 100% as soon as it would be possible to get there. At the moment the coverage is at about 99.5% with an estimate that they will reach practically 100% by the end of the year. To achieve this goal they have so far given local governments 850 million NOK to build and improve infrastructure; and ISP and local commercial interests have contributed to; in total about 1.5 billion NOK has been spent.
If you can read Norwegian www.regjeringen.no [regjeringen.no] has more info.
Here is a quote from 2007 by the then Norwegian Minister of Petroleum and Energy; Åslaug Haga [wikipedia.org]
The quote is in Norwegian [regjeringen.no] so I have tried to translate as best I can.
Creation of a broadband infrastructure is an important part of our [the party coalition in Government] goals for the districts. We can not accept that anyone in this country becomes losers in the digital evolution. Broadband also gives opportunities for economic development and growth. To ensure full broadband coverage the Government has decided to stimulate faster expansions of the infrastructure; especially in those areas were it isn't commercially profitable to do so.
Think of this as you will; but despite my disagreements with some of the things said and done by various ministers and the government in general; at one point I agree. Full broadband coverage is essential to modern life. It is a means of communication, of gaining information about what is happening, of paying your bills if the nearest bank is a day away, or an important tool for education or self-education. And much much more. Providing full coverage with affordable broadband should be a goal for any country that wish to ensure their citizens grain a high degree of familiarity with technology; and wish to remain competitive in the global market.
Re:Well yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
I beg to differ, this is exactly why government intervention makes sense in many cases. You believe that it is important to have a really fast Internet connection, but unimportant that little Johnny and Suzie have jump ropes. Someone else thinks the jumps ropes are WAY more important. Neither of you has the individual ability to afford to either upgrade the Schools (to any meaningful degree), or upgrade the Internet connection. Through tax dollars and bonds the local government has the ability to do a passable job of both and mitigates compromise. You don't get 100Mbps symmetric Internet (yet), and your neighbor doesn't get a Montesori school on every corner, but you both get some reasonable approximation of what you want.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is why government intervention makes NO sense at all.
Why in the world should we have to choose between funding schools (Johnny's gym jumprope) and fast internet service? The two are totally unrelated! Of course, when everything is run by the Government Monopoly Inc. (GMI) then yes, they are related because the GMI can only confiscate so much per quarter from taxpayers, so all the money must come from a single, limited pot.
However, i
Re: (Score:3)
There would be more competition in densely populated areas, and no service whatsoever in sparsely populated areas.
It costs a lot of money to run cables under the streets, and takes a long time to recoup those costs.
You would at best have limited competition, a couple of large suppliers offering you service in a densely populated area.
Small suppliers simply couldn't afford to lay the cable, and you would never have very many suppliers because that would dilute the market and even big players wouldn't be able
Re:Well yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Small suppliers simply couldn't afford to lay the cable, and you would never have very many suppliers because that would dilute the market and even big players wouldn't be able to recover the cable costs.
Which is where the local government could step in, take out a loan, and run the cable to get a connection, then lease use to private companies equally. Free markets are a good idea -- but you do not have to go 100% free market and 0% government, you can find a happy medium. The problem is that right now we are like 10% free market and 90% government, with the big corporations running the government. I could go on about that, but that would be (-1) off topic.
Re:Well yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
You would run into a situation where the rich can send their kids to better schools, and they get better jobs, and then they make more money, and send their kids to better schools, who make more money. Later on you run into a situation where poor people won't be able to afford school. Two more or less permanent classes. The death of the American dream.
So in a Capitalist system Johnny gets his jumprope, and a new playground set besides, and we all get 100MB service to our homes.
In a capitalist system Johnny gets his jumprope and playground if his daddy is rich. Most kids would get to play with sticks and rocks.
We don't all get 100MB service to our homes. Rich people get 100MB service to their homes.
Of course, in that system the local government would NOT be allowed to limit the number of ISPs servicing an area, so there would be real competition for service in that last mile.
I don't think the government does limit the number of ISP's. I think the free market does. As long as ISP's keep their prices under the cost of implementation of new infrastructure there will never be any competition.
There might be a few more wires strung and/or tunnels dug to run the lines, but there would be more service, more competition, and CHEAPER PRICES.
This is a fantasy. In reality we would end up with 1 really cheap ISP who puts the others out of business, at which point they would either buy out or purchase the equipment from the other companies. The new monopoly would languor just as much as they currently do and could charge as much as they want for their service.
It never fails to amaze me how many people don't understand that most of the major socio-political and economic problems we have today are directly due to the application of too much socialistic GMI and not enough application of Capitalistic Federalism. It would be funny if it wasn't so sick and sad.
I agree there is too much socialism in some cases, but it is usually a failure of implementation or corruption manifesting itself. I should be able to take the money for my education and apply it to any school. But to take away public education and turn it completely over to the private sector is not only ludicrous, its downright evil.
Re:Econ 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
As was proved during the Reagan era, the rich AND poor BOTH get richer when Government gets out of the way (i.e., fetters to productivity are removed).
8 years is a dreadfully short time to 'prove' an economic method. For all you know what is happening right now is a direct result of Reagan era policies, so I am going to call bullshit on that, but if you can actually provide some reasonable backup for your opinion then maybe you can change my mind!
I am not going to pretend that there isn't bad regulation (goddamn there is tons of it), and it should be gotten rid of, but people who say that all regulation is bad regulation are just crazies. Should we take out anti-trust legislation? Was it smart of us to remove the investment bank regulation? What about safety regulation? What about anti-discrimination legislation?
There are 'fetters to productivity' and there is 'good legislation' but to say that all legislation that fetters productivity cannot be good is wrong.
Re:Econ 101 (Score:5, Informative)
As was proved during the Reagan era, the rich AND poor BOTH get richer when Government gets out of the way
Wrong. 80% of the population experienced a decrease in income from 1977 to 1988 (Kevin Phillips [wikipedia.org], The Politics of Rich and Poor, p. 17).
Re:Econ 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
You're quoting a Wikipedia article about the nutcase Kevin Phillips?
I used Keven Phillips because he is about as Republican as you can get without the white robes and burning crosses. I could have used a litany other sources [nytimes.com], but then I'd be accused of lib'rul bias.
To put it another way, your numbers are wrong just like Phillips is.
Did you want to contribute any actual evidence to counter the original point, or just try re-frame the topic with a smear? You wingnuts are so pathetically predictable. (See? Smear! Let's not talk about the actual problem!)
Re:Well yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're seriously comparing East and West Germany as your examples? Excellent choice.it allows me to point out this excellent thing called compromise, or the middle road. You see you are completely correct that East Germany represents an example of the failure of a completely centrally controlled economy. Bad idea, you could just as easily point out the Soviet Union or China before recent reforms. West Germany on teh other hand is hardly an example of unfettered capitalism. It has significant socialist elements including a state sponsored universal health care system, significant wage and work restrictions (to ensure that workers can make a decent living in in menial jobs), state subsidies funding rail and road networks, a much more generous unemployment benefit that the US has, indeed pretty much all of the "normal" European social programs. Despite this its economy is just a strong as the US (smaller, yes, it has a much smaller population) if not stronger, and the "social safety net" that the working poor rely upon is certainly much better. It is arguably better to be rich in the United States than in Germany, but it is certainly better to be poor (or even middle class, for lower end of the "middle class" spectrum) in Germany.
Similarly, as I point out below, the United States is a much more "socialist" country than it was 100 years ago, but the lot of the poor has improved significantly. You are correct that a completely centrally managed economy is a disaster, but for a strong and viable country with a good economy, a mix of private industry with the state managing essential services and providing a fair playing field seems to be the best deal for the most people. Good example!
Re:Well yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Others have already pointed out the problems with this arrangement. It rarely serves the poor, people in out of the way places, or generally anyone it is not as profitable to serve very well. There's any number of reasons that someone might not be profitable to serve, but for some essential services (Electricity, telephone, education, garbage collection, and arguably Internet among many others) we as a society have decided that everyone SHOULD be served. So the government either serves them (public utility) or forces a company to do so as part of its contract (regulated monopoly). Others have gone into more detail on this above me, so instead I'll add something else.
For a good look at how things run when something close to "pure capitalism" is practiced, look at the US (or indeed most industrialized nations) in the mid to late 19th and early 20th centuries. Monopolies and trusts dominated the business landscape, the majority of people worked 6-7 days a week for 12 or more hours a day often for near slave wages. Abuses like the "Company Store System" all but indentured workers in mining, fishing, and other industries that require some level of isolation from urban centers. Illiteracy rates ran into the 50 or 60% range (some of this was due to high illiteracy rates in new immigrants, true, but they represented on a fraction of the literacy problem).
Pure capitalism has been tried, and it generally produced a level of suffering on par with feudalism. Remember that when ideas like Socialism and even Communism were initially proposed, the "suffering of the workers" was not that they had smaller TV's than the well off, or that they had crappy or limited health insurance; it was that they worked like dogs from sun up to sundown (luckily electric lights hadn't caught on yet for most of this period) 6 days a week for (hopefully) just enough money to pay the rent and feed the kids. I'm often floored when people present pure capitalism as if it will usher in some new Utopian or semi-Utopian world where competition drives down prices and increases services without any apparent consideration for the fact that it's been tried. It may have driven down prices (for the rich and middle class), and increased services (for the rich and middle class), but it did so at the expense of significant suffering for the working class
Re:Well yeah... (Score:5, Informative)
This is free market 101. Why government sucks.
Are you insane? For a change a government is bringing wonderful service to its taxpayers (low-cost, high-speed internet) and you somehow still make the comment that "government sucks"?? That's not even trolling, it's certifiable.
I am not kidding when I say this: You have a mental disorder. Probably severe cognitive dissonance, but you'd need a full exam to be sure. Please see a therapist. Honestly. No joke.
Push Polling (Score:5, Informative)
Because I had never heard of the (incredibly vague) term, I RTFS and found in the comments a description:
The story submission is lame, and the story it's about is too. Anyone have a link to a good story on the same subject?
Re:Push Polling (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There's less about the push polling at your link than there was in the inadequate original story. And there's NOTHING about it at your other link. I think what we've learned from this is that when your submission isn't really about the story, it needs more original material.
Re:Push Polling (Score:5, Informative)
Because I had never heard of the (incredibly vague) term
Example of a push polling question: "would you still vote for Joe Candidate if news of his secret heroin addiction were to become public?" Basically, it's a speech disguised as an opinion poll.
Re:Push Polling (Score:4, Insightful)
Better yet, it's usually structured as slander with a built in escape clause:
"Would you vote for Joe Candidate if it turned out he was hiding a secret cocaine addiction, paid for by ongoing embezzlement at his current job and a flourishing side business in white slavery?"
When the inevitable crapstorm starts, push poller can say "Hey, I never said he did blow and pimped whores, I was just asking a hypothetical!"
Re:Push Polling (Score:5, Informative)
Well if you want to know what a "push poll" is, you could have googled it and the first thing up would be an article on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
But anyway, the basic idea is that polls should properly be designed to be impartial in themselves. If you're really trying to find out what people think about the President's performance, for example, you might call people and ask, "Do you approve of the President's performance so far?"
If, on the other hand, you aren't interested in what people think, and instead you're hoping to influence opinion, then you might ask something like, "Doesn't it bother you that the President is doing such an obviously awful job?" or "Aren't you bothered by the outrageous amounts of money the President is spending?" That's push-polling.
In the 2000 election, Bush's campaign called around asking something like, "How would you feel if you found out John McCain had an illegitimate black baby after an affair with a black woman?" Now that didn't happen, but the question was defended as "hypothetical" even though many of the people called didn't believe it was hypothetical.
Sometimes when doing a push poll, the idea is to affect the results of the poll so that they can publish them and say, "See, [X]% of the people see thing my way!" But then sometimes, they don't even bother to record the responses because the point is just to try to influence opinion under the guise of a poll.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There was a case about 5 years ago...I think it was Verizon then, fighting a Chicago(?) suburb that was trying to get fiber-to-the-door paid for through tax bonds. They called everyone in town and asked them how they felt about their tax money going to provide child pornography.
There was a more recent one in Louisiana where Cox and Bellsouth (now AT&T) called around and said that the town would start rationing TV if they owned the lines.
It's real shady crap. It's usually done politically. The biggest po
Merit (Score:5, Insightful)
Any company started and run by any Government is not a "level playing field" IMO. It may be a way for Government price manipulation, but then that's not letting the market determine price.
Secondly, since it is started and run by the Government, wouldn't this be considered a public service instead?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bingo.
The government either has a role in the business of internet service providing or it doesn't.
By putting the government in direct competition with private enterprises, the government is both pricing these companies out of the market and erecting a monopoly where natural competition would be the norm.
Now, you can say that TWC dropped the ball by refusing to pick up these subscribers, but is it really the government's business to wire these folks? And if it is, how should the government turn over these s
Re: (Score:2)
The article implies that the city made a profit on their network, so subsidies didn't come into it.
Re: (Score:2)
But people ARE allowed to build their own network if they want to. It's called a Co-Op. If the local townspeople want to start a community ISP, they can do so in the PRIVATE sector by forming a Co-Op that anyone in the community can join by buying shares. That Co-Op ISP can then market for capital, hire technicians (bonus for creating local jobs without wasting tax dollars!) run lines, build a datacenter, and get started. If people REALLY want to do it, they can. There isn't a need for the government
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong with people coming together and building an alternative network if the commercial ISPs aren't good enough for whatever reasons. This is pretty common here in the Czech Republic, and wile I can't find any general info pages in english, there's a map that outlines the major network nodes in Prague [czfree.net], and similar are available for other locations. These networks are nonprofit organizations which depend solely on their members and volunteers to survive and provide service. You buy your own e
Re:Merit (Score:5, Insightful)
My (admittedly thin) understanding is that the people of the town were fed up with TWC, got together, and made something happen. That's what government is for: By the people and for the people. Of course it has its limitations, but when corporations have a stranglehold it is actually refreshing to me to see that the government is still a way for people to take a stand, even at a tiny local level.
I think the precedent is a great one. If it shoes people that they really can do something, rather than being squashed by a big corp, then great.
Also, the all-or-nothing argument seems a bit much. Do you just propose that people continue to live under the current oppression?
Re: (Score:2)
Telecom isn't a market. The bidding process to get the local monopoly agreement, yes. The actual production of service, no. It is rare to have real choices in your service providers. You might be able to choose between the phone company and the cable company. If you have more choices, it is probably someone reselling the phone or cable company's service. Oooh, the competition there is staggering. The government went to the companies and told them that their service was bad for the price. The response was to
Re:Merit (Score:5, Insightful)
You should understand two things here.
1) The government is NOT using taxpayer money to fund this.
2) They are PROFITABLE
It's not like their selling low, and then subsidizing the costs with taxpayer money. They're selling the service at the price they sell it, and STILL MAKING MONEY.
I think that's the bottom line here.
I see Broadband as no different an essential service to live these days. I certainly couldn't live without it, my job depends on it.
If public companies refuse to provide this, then it should be the governments responsibility to step in and provide this service.
Re:Merit (Score:5, Informative)
They're a non-profit organization, with 100% of revenue funding the employees and expansion of service.
No Sir! (Score:5, Interesting)
The government here is in the wrong for poking its nose where it doesn't belong. Either the entire ISP business should be under government control or none of it should be. By cherry picking certain parts, the government has made a very bad decision with long term ramifications for all business in the state.
Then let's privatize the Fire Department and all other services exclusively run by government.
Or even better, let's put the entire issue to a public vote. This would be the ultimate form of democracy. How about that?
You are one of the folks that thinks that anything run by government is bad as if, when you find yourself on the death bed...being bamboozled by insurance companies...as if who provides the service you need at the material time matters. What would matter to you is how you can get the help you need. I do not care who provides a service as long as I am satisfied.
People with your thoughts are partly responsible with the current financial crisis. It's insane. I would like you to call for a referendum on this issue instead of ranting around here.
Remember, a drowning man will cling to a reed with the hope that it will offer a lifeline of some sort.
Re: (Score:2)
People with your thoughts are partly responsible with the current financial crisis. It's insane.
You forgot to call out the GP for his false "all or nothing" dichotomy.
I swear, sometimes the intellectual dishonesty displayed by free marketeers is stunning.
And even that ignores his bit about cherry picking, which is exactly what private ISPs did until local/state government forced build-out requirements upon them.
I would like you to call for a referendum on this issue instead of ranting around here.
As we're seeing with the slow-motion implosion of the Republican party, given enough rope, the ideologically pure would rather hang themselves than use the rope to make a bridge off their moun
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you referring to the soon-to-be highly valuable skill of odometer (or other mileage sensor) tampering?
Personally, I'm expecting an increase in taxes on electricity. Possibly a second, metered-differently outlet for automobiles. Many cities have this sort of thing for water that is used for outside, like watering lawns and the like. They're metered differently because there is no sewerage charge.
However, knowing the government, I expect them to do both and possibly something else I didn't think of.
Re:Merit (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, socialism isn't outlawed by the U.S. Constitution. I'm in favor of the government doing whatever it can do better then big business, e.g. replace the joke of a medical insurance system with a single payer government run system.
Admittedly socialism doesn't work well in many cases because the process is corrupted by the rich and powerful and special interests. But on the local level, a socialized industry might work better then on the national level, because the people will have more influence to avoid corruption then they do on the national level.
If cities can provide broadband service cheaper then private companies, I want them to. As long as its self supporting and not subsidized.
I'm tired of CEOs making millions of dollars for doing nothing unique or that a lot of other people making far less couldn't do.
And the telecoms are among the worst of the bunch in undeserved profits.
Re:Merit (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm in favor of the government doing whatever it can do better then big business, e.g. replace the joke of a medical insurance system with a single payer government run system.
- that would be a mistake, I live in Canada, it's no joke. Our cancer patients have to wait for over 70 days now to start getting critical treatment, our emergency rooms are filled with people who are waiting for 8-16 hours to get service and half of our people do not have a physician, forget about getting an appointment with a specialist in less than 3-4 months (sometimes 6-9 months).
You do not want to remove competition, what you do want is to add competition.
Have the government run a competing system, then you'll get somewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've no particular problem with socialism in general, nor the government providing more and more services. However, the Tenth Amendment [cornell.edu] specifically states that any powers not granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution are reserved for the States or the People
Re: (Score:2)
The government can't do anything better than the private sector with the exception of national defense.
And yet without any cross-subsidizing, this government is providing a level of service far beyond Time Warner's for far cheaper. As far as I can tell, that would be "doing it better" than the private sector.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If we had adopted that thinking in other areas, half the country would still be in the dark, or only have access to 2 AMPs of power, when the areas with densest population had 20 AMP service.
The government either has a role in the business of electric power delivery or it doesn't.
By putting the government in direct competition with private enterprises, the government is both pricing private companies out of the market and erecting a monopoly where natural competition would be the norm.
Now, you can say
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Either the entire ISP business should be under government control or none of it should be.
Why all or none? Both capitalism and government can be powerful forces for good and evil, depending entirely on how they are managed. A local government or semi-public cooperative might work very well as an ISP.
Re: (Score:2)
but is it really the government's business to wire these folks?
Yes. Otherwise you likely wouldn't have electricity, phone service, gas, sewage, or running water today.
The Internet is an important part of our economy. While it is not treated as such, it is an important utility. Even worse, in many places, ISPs (cable companies and/or phone companies) are getting legal monopolies as any other utility but are not pricing them as a utility - rather they are priced as a monopoly because nothing requires otherwis
Re:Merit (Score:5, Insightful)
"The Market" was rejected by the monopoly players in this case. If you had been following the story, the local government requested better service and lower prices and they simply refused. There are times when "the market" (aka, "the people") need to push ahead instead of "waiting for the leaders."
This story is quite similar to others where these players in the ISP game quite frequently refuse the requests of municipalities resulting in the municipalities building their own infrastructures which then results in the communications companies filing legal actions against it. I find it most profound when it happens that a given company doesn't want to offer ANY service to an area and yet will fight tooth and nail when a local government wants to build its own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Merit (Score:5, Insightful)
Those notions had occurred to me. But "authorities" have always had access to my traffic... some of it quite secretly.
"Not sufficient demand" arguments are great reasons for these telecoms to NOT CARE and yet they do. The reality is that these ISPs are trying to protect their over-sized profit model as municipalities are going to learn how expensive it is to operate and install these services versus how much they pay for them and begin to realize that the consumer is NOT getting a good deal at all. Exposing that kind of truth is a big deal and threatens their million-dollar annual bonuses.
And given that this service is paying for itself and ultimately will be quite profitable negates the argument that it wouldn't have been profitable... it wouldn't be profitable ENOUGH.
The fact of the matter is that internet service is quickly becoming a necessary utility just as telephone and electric power services are today. (They were once fancy options as well!) It is a utility that has yet to fall under regulation and as we can see throughout history, unregulated necessary utilities tend to drive prices higher and burden consumers painfully to the detriment of local economies. (more money being drained from local economies by high utility prices and less money available for local spending which ALSO means less taxed income for local government) Texas and California deregulated electric power and we experience rolling blackouts, the highest prices for power in the nation and even more complaints about their profitability. Meanwhile, in states where power utilities are regulated, no such problems exist for power, no one is going out of business and the citizenry is less burdened.
Government regulation over various aspects of commercial activity are not bad by definition. A guest on the Daily Show put is ever so simply when she explained that since the beginning of the U.S., we have had financial crisis cycles until we emerged from the great depression with strict regulations and government backing. Following that was more than 50 years of relative stability and prosperity and a defeat of the financial crisis cycle. But when regulation was pulled back on S&Ls, an S&L crisis soon followed. Some said the answer was "less regulation" and so more regulations were removed and even more crises occurred.
Here's a truth that EVERY parent knows:
Unregulated kids are going to do dumb, crazy and bad things. They WILL burn your house down if you are not careful.
I find that this truth is not just restricted to children includes adults and the adults who run businesses as well. And this is especially true when these adults who run businesses are as arrogant and narcissistic as they are demonstrating themselves to be... and they demonstrate that they don't feel at all responsible or accountable for the mess they created.
Re:Merit (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmmm...here's some food for thought: city governments already run trash collection services, schools, snow removal services, real estate brokerages, electrical services, cable TV services, electric utilities, water utilities, etc. There are private equivalents for all these services (and more) that city governments provide. (Yes, including water utilities and trash removal. If you don't believe me, I will show you my water bill and trash removal bill) and in some instances these even compete in the same community.
I don't see anybody fighting over that. How is running an Internet service provider any different?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Merit (Score:5, Insightful)
It is only a non level playing field if the government *loses* money in their own ISP but keeps it afloat anyway. If the government ISP company *makes* money using the same business processes that the industry would (or could or should), how can you talk about a non level playing field?
If the governemnt ISP makes a fair and honest profit, then the ISPs have no right to complain. But of course it makes business sense for them to complain anyway.
Re:Merit (Score:5, Informative)
I agree 100%. And in this instance of Wilson, NC, this is the case. From the Mayor Brian Bowman's blog:
One last note, Wilson tax money does not fund Greenlight (ed note: Wilson's municipal ISP). Citizens who choose Greenlight buy the services just like they would from any other provider.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, since it is started and run by the Government, wouldn't this be considered a public service instead?
I find this an interesting argument. Where is the line between an essential public service, like water and electricity, and something that is less essential like an Internet connection? The electric company in my area is a non-profit electric cooperative. It was started in the 1930's to supply power to what was then a very rural area. Electricity at that time was about the same as the internet is today, can you get by with out it? Yes. It is a boost to your standard of living? Yes.
I do not think there
Re: (Score:2)
What is 'the market' though? Isn't it the people who are paying for the service? Or do you think 'the market' is the list of current firms providing a service?
I argue that in 'the market' the buyers are at least as important as the providers if not much more important. If the providers do everything in their power to limit the choices to the people (to 'the market') then shouldn't the people attempt and get their choice of service somewhere else? If that means that the people have to get together and st
Re: (Score:2)
It may be a way for Government price manipulation, but then that's not letting the market determine price.
Letting the corporation determine the price ain't so hot either.
Market price normalization only really comes into effect when there are a ton of competition and practical barriers of entry into the industry. First prices start really high... then they get really low when a flood of companies launch themselves into the industry... and then they balance out at the normalized rate when the inferior companies get squeaked out of the market because their prices were either too low or too high.
We had a "Leve
corportate behavior, government dependency (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need a different country. This one has been the way it is for a long time, and there isn't any motive force for change, despite B. Obama's fine rhetoric.
A more populist government, it seems, would naturally follow from changing the voting structure to something other than FPTP. The chances of that are negligible, as are the chances for any real change in the causes of the issues you name. I think it's more significant even than 'the devil you know'; the corporate culture has become a cornerstone
How can they win? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, this would make the internet a public service more than a paid for service, so, unfortunately, there is a large gray area there - and the companies making the pretty penny are going to fight in that gray area.
Re:How can they win? (Score:5, Informative)
Its not just roads. As an earlier post pointed out, many city or county governments handle garbage collection, electricity, and/or natural gas.
All of these are handled in other places by private companies.
City of Chicago handles garbage collection.
In the city of Darien, BFI handles garbage collection.
City of Naperville does electricity.
ComEd sells me my electricity.
Corporations trolled (Score:5, Interesting)
And I fucking RAGED.
*You* didn't want the customers, fuckers, *YOU*. They came to you begging for service. You denied. Now they did it themselves and you blame unfair competition? Go jerk off in some cold closet, incompetent bastards...
Explain push polling to me? (Score:2)
Tried to RTFA, but blocked from work as P2P.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a very popular political tool.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's a "political poll" delivered under false pretense with prejudiced questions.
A poll designed not to collect your answers but to feed you misinformation (FUD) and influence your opinion.
Generally, they are very effective. People investing time in taking a poll believe the pollster is an authority on the subject, so there is a strong tendency tend to believe all the misinformation, and many people's opinions can be influenced dramatically.
(Especially if they were neutral on or unaware of the subje
What a racket (Score:2)
TW pays a bribe for access; Greenlight benefits (Score:4, Interesting)
At least in the Triangle area in NC, TW pays the local municipalities a bribe, I mean an "Access Fee" that can approach something like 15% of the revenue. While their methods are all unsavory, they are rightfully angry that their bribe is underwriting a competitor.
Only one way for city and citizens to win (Score:2)
Re:Only one way for city and citizens to win (Score:5, Interesting)
The city of Ashland in southern Oregon operates a fiber-optic network that's open to multiple ISPs. The city does not operate its own ISP at all, and they don't sell Internet access directly to residents; you have to sign up with an ISP, and the ISP pays the city for access to the fiber network. The city sets the speed and charges the ISP more for faster speeds, but the ISP provides the Internet connection, tech support, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that exactly what the city offered?
They built the infrastructure nescesary and then went to the incumbants saying "we built this nice fat infrastructure, and we'd like to let you use it if you give us a better service than we're getting right now".
The companies declined this offer and then gut pissed that the city decided to use the infrastructure anyway.
Greenlights rates (Score:3, Informative)
So this is what they are offering, at a profit right? (No govt. subsidies putting TWC out of business in the area, right?)
http://www.greenlightnc.com/home/internet/internetonly/ [greenlightnc.com]
$59.95 for 20 mbps UP AND DOWN? 2UP? And they do this profitably right? Then is it possible everyone else is getting screwed over by their ISP Monopolies/Duopolies?
"The 20Mbps speed includes both uploads and downloads and is the fastest residential speed available anywhere in North Carolina."
Go Greenlight go! I wonder what the real estate is like in the area served.
Re: (Score:2)
If you go to Time Warner Cable website [yourtwc.com], enter the area code and order just Cable and High Speed Online, the total price is around $102.85 month (Digital Cable + Road Runner Turbo @ upto 15 Mpbs download / 2Mbps upload).
Now, despite being begged to introduce Cable service in this area, Time Warner refused. Now they are being undercut by someone offering a better service for half the price. No wonder they are steaming.
Ahh - ye goode olde American Double Standard (Score:2)
When free market capitalism lets competition kick you out of business -you fight it.
It all makes so much sense.
can't compete? (Score:2)
I could be wrong but I read that the city running Greenlight asked Time Warner Cable if they would offer better, higher speed service to the city and when they didn't the city started their own ISP. It seems like they aren't interested in competing.
North Carolinians, write or call NC Congress. (Score:5, Informative)
The bills in question are NC Senate bill 1004 and NC House bill 1242. You can find contact information for your state congresspeople here:
http://www.votesmart.org/index.htm [votesmart.org]
And remember, even if you're a NC resident who doesn't live in Wilson, this is a *state-level* issue, and your opinion counts. Not only that, but if these bills pass, it means no cheap internet for you, either. Be heard now, while it matters.
The actual bill in question (Score:3, Interesting)
Has anyone actually bothered to read the bill [state.nc.us] in question? All it's doing is making sure the city-owned ISP isn't---or doesn't in the future---engage in the kind of abuses I just posted about. It's specifically to make sure they can't lower their rates by subsidizing themselves with tax dollars, exempt themselves from paying telco taxes, and similar. Here are the relevant pieces:---
Anyone opposing this is basically saying, "I want cheap Internets by making you pay for it."
Re: (Score:2)
WTF?!?! You actually READ the article before posting here? Are you lost?
Hello...This is Slashdot...People who read articles are one door to the right... :)
Sheldon
Re: (Score:2)
I would say I was amazed that you're a complete and total moron, but I'm simply not.
We already know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Government already has complete access to all telecommunications. We already know that privatization makes no difference at all. We have laws that provide immunity to these companies for breaking the law.
You are a complete idiot. Congratulations on reaching such perfection.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)